![]()
COMMENTARY
CHAPTER 1.1
The Formation of the Book of Isaiah: The Heading
1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
[1] As it stands, the heading gives the impression that all sixty-six chapters of the book come from the prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, who was working in Jerusalem in the second half of the eighth century BC. However, the man who once placed it at the beginning of a collection of prophetic sayings which he had made is only indirectly responsible for this impression. The anonymous collections to be found in chs. 40–55 and 56–66, and described as Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah simply because they were incorporated into the book of Isaiah as a result of the tradition by which they were handed down, were only attached to the collection in chs. 1–39 at a secondary stage, causing this collection to be known as Proto-Isaiah.1 Furthermore, even the first collection is not an original literary unit.
1. The commentary which follows indicates that the foundation of the collection may be seen as a smaller collection of prophetic sayings, presumably first made at the beginning of the fifth century, and influenced by the theology of the Deuteronomistic History.2 It begins with the earliest sayings, contained in ch. 1, and is continued in the basic material of chs. 28–31. It was at one with Deuteronomistic theology in its concern to interpret the collapse of the kingdom of Judah, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the royal family and the upper classes, in 587, as a consequence of the people’s refusal to listen to the prophet and to trust Yahweh instead of Egypt (cf. 30.12ff.; 30.1ff.; 31.1ff.). At the same time it called upon the survivors to abandon their own resistance to Yahweh (cf. 1.22f., 4ff., 18ff.). Further clarification is needed as to whether the prophecies which form the basis of chs. 28–31 were originally regarded as Isaianic tradition or whether they were only interpreted in this way at a later stage. It was possible to ascribe an anonymous prophecy from the last years of the kingdom of Judah, with its warnings against trusting in Egypt, to the prophet Isaiah, and therefore make him see beyond his own time to the downfall of the kingdom, because the situations of 703–701 and 589–587 were essentially similar: at the end of the eighth century Hezekiah (715?–697) had rebelled against Sennacherib, king of Assyria (705–681), and was only able to save Jerusalem, already besieged by its enemies, by surrendering.3 In the early years of the second decade of the sixth century, Zedekiah (597–586) had rebelled against his Babylonian master Nebuchadnezzar II (604–562) and paid for this by being deposed from the throne and imprisoned.4 Given that Isaiah was on Hezekiah’s side during the decisive years, as the Isaiah narratives of chs. 36–39, taken from the Deuteronomistic II Kings, indicate, it was easy to assume that at that point he had warned against the policy which proved so disastrous for the kingdom and forecast its consequences as the punishment of Yahweh. In this case the Isaiah narratives would have proved responsible for the formation of the whole of the tradition handed down in the prophet’s name. However, whether or not this is the case, in the last resort the whole process of tradition, which caused the collection continually to expand, can only be understood against the background of the loss of living authorities in post-exilic Judaism and the consequent enhancing of the reputation of antiquity, as being well-tried and fundamental.
2. I think that this commentary demonstrates that the so-called ‘memorial of the prophet Isaiah concerning his activity at the time of the Syro-Ephraimite War’ (6.1–8.18) at all events presupposes that the earliest prophecies, contained in chs. 28–31, should be identified with sayings of Isaiah. In turn, the authors of this memorial were influenced by Deuteronomistic theology. On the basis of the accounts contained in the book of Kings, they recognized the significance for the whole of the future history of the kingdom of Judah of the voluntary submission of Ahaz king of Judah (734–715) to Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria (745–727), in the face of the threat posed by Israel and the kingdom of Damascus in the so-called Syro-Ephraimite war (734–732). From this they drew the conclusion that at that time the prophet Isaiah had already tried to dissuade the king from this faithless decision and prophesied the downfall of the kingdom.5 In this way the authors sought to convince their own contemporaries that Yahweh had in fact shown himself to be Lord of history in the catastrophe which befell the people in 587, and accordingly had continued to remain the master of all possibilities, even now.
The heading could only be given its present form, setting the activity of the prophet Isaiah in the reigns of the kings from Uzziah to Hezekiah, after the memorial had been inserted into the original scroll. In this connection, 6.1 may have proved the starting point and the Isaiah narratives in chs. 36–39 the conclusion. The direct influence of the Deuteronomistic history is reflected in the insertion of Jotham between Uzziah and Ahaz,6 which is historically correct, and probably also in the mention of Judah before Jerusalem.7 The heading uses the terms for vision and seeing, ḥāzōn and ḥāzā, in quite a weak sense, denoting the receiving of revelation generally; this usage can also be found elsewhere in the headings to the earlier prophetic books and in the titles of the later ones,8 and need not be taken to mark the prophet out as a visionary.
3. Like the basic material in 28–31, the memorial is based on the belief and trust that Yahweh shows his faithfulness and power by saving his people, and it requires the same belief from the people of its own time. It is obvious that this message called for amplification, indeed demanded it, considering the causes of the catastrophe. In the eyes of the prophets and the Deuteronomistic theology of history, the faithlessness and ingratitude of the people towards their God had manifested themselves not only in a faithless form of politics but also, as a glance at the present could recall, in the social and personal behaviour of the upper classes, who were in a special way responsible for the fate of the people. It is therefore understandable that when the memorial was incorporated in the prophetic scroll it was given a prologue and also an epilogue to underline its message of judgment. The so-called ‘Song of the Vineyard’ (5.1–7) castigates breaches of the law and the suffering that this brings upon ordinary people. The woes contained in 5.8–24 + 10.1–3* specify in detail the general charges made in the Song of the Vineyard, so that the two together show the other causes of the earlier catastrophe and at the same time raise indirectly the question of the future fate of the people. The epilogue, the poem with a refrain mentioning the outstretched hand of Yahweh (9.8–21 [7–20] + 5.26–29), demonstrates in its retrospective survey of the disastrous history of the people and its announcement of the inescapable downfall of the kingdom of Judah, set in the context of Isaiah, that the fate of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah is the just punishment of Yahweh, at the same time again calling for responsibility on the part of both the rulers and the ruled. This concern for the social dimension can also be found in the instructions about sacrifice in 1.10–17, which denounce as worthless all sacrifice which is not preceded by moral obedience concerned for the well-being of all members of the people. The lament about the faithlessness of Jerusalem expressed in the corruption of the judgment of the rulers (1.21–23a) is a comparable passage and raises for the people the question of the future of their city.
4. The next generation already had the judgment of the world in view, a judgment which was suggested by astronomically based beliefs coming powerfully to the fore in the West, according to which the world-cycle was nearing its end.9 This belief found expression within chs. 1–12 only at 2.12–17, the announcement of the great Day of Yahweh, and then comes to determine above all the basic stratum of the so-called Isaiah apocalypse in chs. 24–27.10 Another expectation came to maturity in the shadow of the first, that of the onslaught of the nations against Jerusalem and Judah, which broke over them like a storm, provoked by the arrogance and injustice of the upper classes. Thus 1.21–23a was expanded by vv. 23b–25; in the shade of the announcement of the outbreak of divine wrath against all pride upon the earth (3.1–4.1), the new message of judgment is formulated, and the woes in 5.9f., 12, 14, 17, 19 and 10.3 are accentuated accordingly. At the same time 6.12–13abα; 7.23b, 24, 25a; 8.19–23a, and presumably also 10.28–34*, were probably also added, so that this proclamation then came to underlie 5.26–29. This line can then presumably be traced further through 22.1–14* as far as chs. 28–31, where e.g. 29.1–4 and 32.9–14 take up this message.
5. However, the believer could not be content with the thought that Yahweh had resolved finally to abandon his people, to retreat into his initial hiddenness and to give up the promises that he had made. 8.18 was seen as the prophetic declaration of trust, the announcement of hope in the God who dwells on Zion. And in the Deuteronomic history, II Sam. 7 contained the promise made to David that his dynasty would last for ever. So a generation later, attention was again directed to the saving action of Yahweh for his people beyond the future catastrophe, which would leave that of 587 far behind. The Immanuel prophecies in 7.14b–16ba*; 7.21f.; 8.8b*, 9–10 and the messianic prophecies of 9.2–7 [1–6]; 11.1–5 know that the saviour will be born in the time of distress, and that he will renew the dynasty and found the kingdom of eternal peace.
6. Wonder at the past and veneration for the ancient, which increased as time went on, strengthed the pseudepigraphical traits which are evident, at any rate, from the memorial and its setting in the Isaiah scroll. The preservation of Jerusalem in the year 701, presented in highly stylized form so that it becomes the antitype, the counterpart, of the catastrophe of 587,11 now offered the possibility of speaking of the arrogance of Assyria, the danger posed to Jerusalem by the nations and the saving of the city through the latter’s annihilation in a way that was innocuous to outsiders and clear enough to those in the know. It was a way of understanding the collapse of the world power and the peoples who were once again raging against the city of God. This Assyrian revision, with which we may have reached the end of the fifth century, begins in 10.5–15* and is continued in 14.24–27, which were moved to their present position at a later stage. This stratum can be traced through 17.12–14 as far as chs. 28–31; we may count 29.5–8; 30.27–33; 31.4f., 8f., as a part of it.
7. In the end I would prefer to leave open the question whether the historicizing insertions and alterations in 3.8f.; 5.13, 14* (15, 16); 7.1*, 4b, 5b, 8b, 16bα*β, 17b, 18aβ*, bβ, 20aβ*; 8.7 and aβ, 8aα*, 23b and 9, 8aβ, 20a (?) are connected with it or, as I have occasionally suggested in the commentary, give expression to a certain anti-eschatological approach. In principle, this tendency may be connected with the pseudepigraphical concern of the Assyrian revision.
8. Additions like those in 1.26, 27f. are overshadowed by the universal eschatological expectation without giving any indication of belonging to particular strata. The announcement of judgment against those who participate in nature cults in 1.28–31 is also overshadowed by the major revisions. Through 17.7f.; 31.6f. it is possible to trace links which go beyond the collection known as Proto-Isaiah and presuppose its combination with Trito-Isaiah (cf. 57.5; 65.3b–4, 11–12; 66.17). The insertion of 2.2–5 involved the addition of the heading in 2.1, which is meant to claim for the prophet Isaiah the promise which has also been handed down in the book of Micah.12 This also, however, called for 2.6–9*, to form a bridge with 2.10–17*. Here once again we have a retrospect over the disastrous history of the nation. At the same time it provided the possibility of stressing clearly the eschatological character of 2.10ff.*, and in 2.18–21 of prophesying the end of the idols and the collapse of the idolaters. This polemic is clearly dependent on sayings like 40.19f.; 41.6f.; 42.17; 44.9–20; 45.16b, 20b; 46.5–8; 48.22, and this in turn demonstrates the connection of the book with the collection known as Deutero-Isaiah.
9. The man who exchanged the final strophe of the poem with its refrain about the outstretched hand of Yahweh (5.26–29) with the final woe in 10.1–3, composed 5.25 as a bridge, and thus gave the strophe a new eschatological significance, was similarly influenced by the universalist expectations which combine notions of judgment and salvation; that is, if we may also ascribe 5.30 to him. By this transposition he dissolved the connection between ch. 5 and the memorial and not only cut the first five chapters clearly away from what follows, but also gave them an appropriate conclusion. However, with its almost puzzling reticence, 5.30 at the same time raises the question how the enemy will meet his fate, and thus points beyond itself to what is to come. Presumably the same hand also transposed 14.24–27 to its present place. It would also be attractive to ascribe 6.13bβ to this editor, who is certainly also responsible for the final revision of the refrain poem, for which he provided a new conclusion in 10.4.
10. These alterations evidently provided the basis for reshaping 10.5–12.6, taking account of existing material, so that it formed a brief history of the end-time. The new additions can of course be recognized as late by their mosaic style and their borrowing of phrases from the book of Isaiah, the Psalter and finally the Song of the Sea (Ex. 15). Thus th...
